1. Findings
   1. Extent and Range of the Literature
   2. Missing Topics

Findings

Extent and Range of the Literature

As can be seen in Table 1 below, prior to 2010, we were only able to locate three studies: one (n=1) peer-reviewed article (2008), one (n=1) report from Statistics Canada (2002) and one (n=1) Master’s Thesis (2009). After 2008, a six-year gap emerged in which we could find no relevant peer-reviewed Canadian literature and only a handful of studies produced in the form of academic theses or dissertations. The lack of research in this area began to shift in 2014, with scholars publishing, on average, one peer-reviewed paper per year. Scholarly output in the form of theses and dissertations occurred randomly across both decades. We could only locate one (n=1) government report from 2002 and nothing beyond that date.

Table 1. Crosstabulation of the Year and Number of Works Located (2001-2021)

While the overall volume of Canadian research on cyberpolicing and related topics is fairly low, we did observe some diversity in terms of the types of research methods employed. In particular, studies were almost evenly split between quantitative (n=7) and qualitative methods (n=8), with only one mixed methods study combining survey and interview data. Qualitative studies relied heavily on interview data, whereas quantitative typically drew on secondary data and some primary data sources by way of surveys conducted by the researchers. We also note that much of the research – both quantitative and qualitative – was descriptive and exploratory in nature. One significant concern is the lack of experimental research, a method often used in evaluative studies. This finding suggests that what is missing from research in this area are studies assessing how well specific cyberpolicing programs, policies, and practices are performing in terms of meeting program or institutional objectives.

Table 2. Research Methods

While policing tends to fall squarely within the field of criminology because of the technical and socially complex nature of cyber-crime and cyberpolicing, these topics are best thought of as inherently multi-disciplinary fields of study. To determine the extent to which the included studies reflected the multi-disciplinary nature of the field, we looked to the institutional affiliation of the first author. In doing so, what we observed is that all of the studies were produced by researchers working within the social sciences. Except for two studies – one by Statistics Canada (Kowalski 2002) and the other by the Canadian Policing Knowledge Network (Beesely 2021) – which are depicted under the ‘general’ disciplinary category, the remainder were largely within the domains of criminology (n=9), sociology (n=3) and legal studies (n=3). Interestingly, despite the fact that some of the studies examined explored psychological dimensions of cyberpolicing, only one study came from the field of psychology (n=1). Overall, cyber-crime and cyberpolicing emerged as explored within a total of eighteen (n=18) research domains (see Table 3). These spheres represent the disciplines/perspectives that are influencing empirics and assumptions and also expectedly driving public policy and practice.

Table 3. Scholarly Fields in Which the Research was Produced

Given the international scope of the issue of cyber-crime, we expected to see Canadian researchers exploring issues related to the trans-jurisdictional nature of cyberpolicing, and thus some Canadian-focused studies that relied on the use of data from international sources. What we found is that the majority of studies used data from Canadian sources, including surveys of Canadian police services, interviews with Canadian police officers, and information collected by Statistics Canada (n=14). Only two papers – both on the effects of policing efforts on online illicit markets – contained international data (n=2).

In the eighteen (n=18) papers located, we identified twenty (n=20) discrete topics¹ . While there is a healthy diversity of topics covered within the Canadian literature, there are too few studies on any one topic to contribute to and develop a strong evidence base. As can be seen in Table 4 below, eighteen (n=18) of the topics appear in the literature fewer than five times, with ten (n=10) of these appearing only once.

If we had to identify the most frequently occurring topics, a loose definition would be appearing in the collected studies four or more times. Thus, our results would include three (n=3) topics: child sexual exploitation, police attitudes towards cybercrime and investigation. Of these, police work on ‘child sexual exploitation’ (CSE) was the most frequently occurring of all topics

¹ Some papers addressed more than one topic. Given this, we opted not to include a final total at the base of Table 4.

(n=7). This result can be explained by the fact that one research team (Spencer, Ricciardelli, Dodge et al. 2020) generated a single study on Internet Child Exploitation teams that contributed four papers. Sub-topics in these papers included: police resources, aspects of the police investigation, occupational stress and digital evidence. The other two papers similarly looked at CSE work with a sub-focus on issues related to digital evidence, technology, and occupational stress.

‘Police attitudes’ and aspects of investigational work appeared in five (n=5) papers each. Papers examining police attitudes towards cyber-related work were generally in the context of more significant explorations of CSE, cyberbullying and/or police resources for responding to cybercrimes. The topic identified as ‘aspects of police investigation’ – that is, looking at one or more investigational processes or outcomes – also appeared in relation to two papers on CSE, as well as in one paper on illicit online markets. ‘Digital evidence’ was one of these topics, notably found in papers on CSE, as we have stated above. This was also the case with ‘police resources’ with one exception: the issue of police services lacking sufficient personnel to deal with a particular type of offense also appeared in one paper on intellectual property (IP) theft. Police ‘training’ issues were also a more frequent topic (n=4).

In terms of frequency, the next group of topics were those that appeared in more than one paper but in fewer than four. Issues related to ‘police data’ – particularly the possibility of inaccuracies due to underreporting – were raised in three (n=3) papers. The topics of ‘enforcement efforts’ and ‘online illicit markets’ were identified in a pair of articles (n=2) on the effects of police ‘crackdowns’ on piracy and drug crypto sites. We also found two papers (n=2) on police involvement in preventing and/or responding to cyberbullying.

Our final cluster of topics was found in one paper (n=1) each. These included ‘human trafficking,’ ‘public-private collaborations,’ ‘police prevention work,’ ‘technology issues,’‘occupational stress,’ ‘intellectual property theft,’ ‘working with victims,’ and ‘police searches’ of seized technology. It is worth noting that, although a significant issue in Canada and elsewhere, research into police investigations of cyber-mediated forms of human trafficking has drawn little attention to date. This was also the case with two other important topics: police-led ‘prevention measures’ and police ‘interactions with victims’ of cyberharms. Unsurprisingly, given that digital evidence was a primary focus of three papers (n=3), related fields such as ‘police searches’ and ‘technology issues’ also appear at least once. Lastly, the issues of ‘civilianization’ of police roles in cyber-response and investigation, police ‘digital competencies’ (required skills for specific roles), and ‘police recruitment’ each appeared in one (n=1) paper.

Table 4. Topics Represented Within the Canadian Literature and Their Frequency

Missing Topics

As will be recalled, to determine what topics might be missing from the Canadian research literature on cyberpolicing, we constructed a list based on topics in paper presentations at the ASC for the years 2005 to 2021² . The complete list of those identified by year can be found in Appendix I. We recognize there are significant limitations in this approach, not the least of which is that the list represents those subjects that have been studied and not a list of all possible topics. Thus, there are likely many, many more subjects we could include. That said, we offer this analysis as a starting point to a much more extensive discussion of possible avenues for future research.

Based on our review of the ASC presentations, we identified the following as topics missing from the Canadian research literature:

• information sharing across jurisdictions

• policing of hacking

• policing of romance scams

• comparing law enforcement approaches

• policing of cyberterrorism

• policing of online frauds

• policing of identity theft

• policing cyber-harassment

• gender (women in cyberpolicing) and

• local police responses to cybercrimes

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Method of Inquiry
• Findings
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Acknowledgements
• Appendix I - List of Peer-Reviewed, Published Canadian Papers on Cyberpolicing Topics (2001-2021).
• Appendix II - List of Grey Literature on Cyberpolicing Topics (2001-2021)
• Appendix III - List of Topics Based on ASC presentations (2005 ³ - 2021 ⁴).
• References